Never mind the concern about lousy sweatshop quality; we should worry more about the security of software from a country that is known to participate in state-sponsored hacking. It's like hiring the Taliban to build a Baptist church.
We're not giving Zuckerberg enough credit for his visionary thinking. All we need is a name for this new police force designed to keep internet content government-approved.
Yup, exactly this. In the recent spate of false hate crime reports to push a political agenda, I have trouble accepting this as random coincidence.
My tinfoil hat isn't tuned in on any specific frequency; I'd be equally unsurprised to find that either he was recognized and given "special" treatment or that it was a routine stop that he exaggerated for publicity.
The most likely outcome of this is that the conpsiracy kooks are going to have more ammunition for their claims that mainstream news, government, etc. are all in bed together censoring the exposure of Deep State machinations.
WhatsApp doesn't want us to share this. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???
Before TV, it was a regular feature in radio programs. Literally as a part of the story, without any break from the plot. A neighbor would come over to visit the main character, make small talk, and casually mention "By the way, I wanted to tell you about my new Veeblefetzer dishwasher. Ever since Melvin bought one for me, housework has become so much easier!"
That's one of many reasons I still use an app-free, text-and-voice-only TracFone. The loss of privacy far outweighs any convenience that a smartphone provides.
Mr. Lake needs to go back and re-read his Sherlock Holmes. The dog that didn't bark in the night was an important clue leading to the identity of the killer, not an indication that nothing happened.
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?" Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time." Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time." Holmes: "That was the curious incident.
Who needs apps? When I need an app, I turn on my computer. My old TracFone LG-501c does calls and text just fine, hasn't needed to be replaced since I got it in 2011 and I'll keep using it until the network no longer supports it. It costs me maybe $10 a month; the phone itself cost maybe $30.
First they'll erect a new firewall to guard against repeated penetration. Then they're going to take a long, hard look at employees' computer usage patterns. Anyone caught will face stiff punishment. And if you think you'll escape detection, you'd best disabuse yourself of that notion.
Yup, exactly. This whole thing reeks of pop psychology. The categories are so arbitrary and vague as to be useless for any kind of analysis or classification. Did they also gather the responses from fortune cookies and Magic 8-Ball [TM]; requests? That would have been every bit as informative. I should certainly hope they consulted with leading palm readers and phrenologists for peer review.
Ah, I just now posted a link to that same page summarizing Nosedive before I saw you got there before me. Now maybe my friends will believe me when I tell them how prophetic the show is...
The Black Mirror episode Nosedive shows us exactly what could possibly go wrong. How can they not expect low ratings to be used in a vindictive manner?
"Restore simplicity" addresses a problem that doesn't exist. The current UI, particularly in Skype For Linux, is excessive simplicity. I can't configure different audio devices for alerts and voice chat. I can't configure different sounds for different events. I can't configure enabling audio alerts when a reply comes in to a conversation that has focus -- meaning if Skype is in the background and I'm doing something else, I never know there's a reply until hours later.
I had all of those features and more before MSFT bought Skype. I want them back.
Yeah, and not just online. I ordered something for my wife from Woman Within once, and ever since then (the past 3+ years) I've gotten a steady stream of catalogs from them in my name. I have gone to their website and submitted an opt-out request; I have been on the phone with them; I have been in chat with them; I have complained in email. I think all it did was increase the rate of deliveries -- sometimes I get two or three in a single week. No wonder our mail carrier gives me a big grin when I see her at the mailbox...
On the other hand, some of those sundresses look like they could be a fashionable way to beat this unbearable heat. Hey, do y'all carry sizes for a 40-inch chest and 46-inch waist?
Provide me with false data that I cannot tell from genuine data. Because that devalues my whole data set. If enough poison is added, all of my data is worthless.
I worry more about inadvertently poisoning the data. When some political extremist (left or right) posts some idiotic paranoid conspiracy trope, the first thing I do before explaining why it is idiotic is go searching for relevant articles with genuine facts.
The result is that my search history is littered with searches for things like child p**n, crime stats among immigrants, rape demographics, the ingredients of homebrewed meth, hate literature, gun ownership, etc. I don't want to think about what that does to Google's profile of what my interests are!
The thing is... we as consumers want it both ways. We want free content on the web, but somebody has to pay the bills to keep the servers running and the programmers programming. So if we won't pay for the content, advertisers foot the bill. Yet we look for every possible way to disable ad content on the "free" pages we consume, fight against any kind of tracking metrics that tell the advertisers their money is well spent, and then get outraged when formerly free sites put up paywalls because their advertising revenue doesn't pay the bills.
And let me be clear that I'm including myself among those want-everything-free consumers. I'll disable adblockers on sites that I can for the most part trust (like my bank or Amazon or Google or Slashdot) as long as the ads aren't so intrusive they cover up content or make lots of noise, but I do still run the adblockers by default.
While walking along in desert sand, you suddenly look down and see a tortoise crawling toward you. You reach down and flip it over onto its back. The tortoise lies there, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs, trying to turn itself over, but it cannot do so without your help. You are not helping. Why?
I'm sure he'll do fine in the courts. After all, Google doesn't really have the resources to fight this and they have a history of just rolling over in the face of adversity.
Slashdot Mirror
Never mind the concern about lousy sweatshop quality; we should worry more about the security of software from a country that is known to participate in state-sponsored hacking. It's like hiring the Taliban to build a Baptist church.
We don't say "crackers" any more. In the US, "rural Americans" is the preferred term; elsewhere "agricultural traditionalists" works.
We're not giving Zuckerberg enough credit for his visionary thinking. All we need is a name for this new police force designed to keep internet content government-approved.
I think "Thought Police" has a nice ring to it.
Yup, exactly this. In the recent spate of false hate crime reports to push a political agenda, I have trouble accepting this as random coincidence.
My tinfoil hat isn't tuned in on any specific frequency; I'd be equally unsurprised to find that either he was recognized and given "special" treatment or that it was a routine stop that he exaggerated for publicity.
Cue Microsoft buyout in 3... 2... 1...
The most likely outcome of this is that the conpsiracy kooks are going to have more ammunition for their claims that mainstream news, government, etc. are all in bed together censoring the exposure of Deep State machinations.
WhatsApp doesn't want us to share this. WHAT ARE THEY HIDING???
I wish I were kidding.
Before TV, it was a regular feature in radio programs. Literally as a part of the story, without any break from the plot. A neighbor would come over to visit the main character, make small talk, and casually mention "By the way, I wanted to tell you about my new Veeblefetzer dishwasher. Ever since Melvin bought one for me, housework has become so much easier!"
That's one of many reasons I still use an app-free, text-and-voice-only TracFone. The loss of privacy far outweighs any convenience that a smartphone provides.
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Gregory: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."
Holmes: "That was the curious incident.
How is it easier than just abandoning DST entirely?
Who needs apps? When I need an app, I turn on my computer. My old TracFone LG-501c does calls and text just fine, hasn't needed to be replaced since I got it in 2011 and I'll keep using it until the network no longer supports it. It costs me maybe $10 a month; the phone itself cost maybe $30.
Also, get off my lawn.
First they'll erect a new firewall to guard against repeated penetration. Then they're going to take a long, hard look at employees' computer usage patterns. Anyone caught will face stiff punishment. And if you think you'll escape detection, you'd best disabuse yourself of that notion.
Where we're going... we don't NEED the Fourth Amendment.
Yup, exactly. This whole thing reeks of pop psychology. The categories are so arbitrary and vague as to be useless for any kind of analysis or classification. Did they also gather the responses from fortune cookies and Magic 8-Ball [TM]; requests? That would have been every bit as informative. I should certainly hope they consulted with leading palm readers and phrenologists for peer review.
Ah, I just now posted a link to that same page summarizing Nosedive before I saw you got there before me. Now maybe my friends will believe me when I tell them how prophetic the show is...
The Black Mirror episode Nosedive shows us exactly what could possibly go wrong. How can they not expect low ratings to be used in a vindictive manner?
^ This.
"Restore simplicity" addresses a problem that doesn't exist. The current UI, particularly in Skype For Linux, is excessive simplicity. I can't configure different audio devices for alerts and voice chat. I can't configure different sounds for different events. I can't configure enabling audio alerts when a reply comes in to a conversation that has focus -- meaning if Skype is in the background and I'm doing something else, I never know there's a reply until hours later.
I had all of those features and more before MSFT bought Skype. I want them back.
Yeah, and not just online. I ordered something for my wife from Woman Within once, and ever since then (the past 3+ years) I've gotten a steady stream of catalogs from them in my name. I have gone to their website and submitted an opt-out request; I have been on the phone with them; I have been in chat with them; I have complained in email. I think all it did was increase the rate of deliveries -- sometimes I get two or three in a single week. No wonder our mail carrier gives me a big grin when I see her at the mailbox...
On the other hand, some of those sundresses look like they could be a fashionable way to beat this unbearable heat. Hey, do y'all carry sizes for a 40-inch chest and 46-inch waist?
Provide me with false data that I cannot tell from genuine data. Because that devalues my whole data set. If enough poison is added, all of my data is worthless.
I worry more about inadvertently poisoning the data. When some political extremist (left or right) posts some idiotic paranoid conspiracy trope, the first thing I do before explaining why it is idiotic is go searching for relevant articles with genuine facts.
The result is that my search history is littered with searches for things like child p**n, crime stats among immigrants, rape demographics, the ingredients of homebrewed meth, hate literature, gun ownership, etc. I don't want to think about what that does to Google's profile of what my interests are!
The thing is... we as consumers want it both ways. We want free content on the web, but somebody has to pay the bills to keep the servers running and the programmers programming. So if we won't pay for the content, advertisers foot the bill. Yet we look for every possible way to disable ad content on the "free" pages we consume, fight against any kind of tracking metrics that tell the advertisers their money is well spent, and then get outraged when formerly free sites put up paywalls because their advertising revenue doesn't pay the bills.
And let me be clear that I'm including myself among those want-everything-free consumers. I'll disable adblockers on sites that I can for the most part trust (like my bank or Amazon or Google or Slashdot) as long as the ads aren't so intrusive they cover up content or make lots of noise, but I do still run the adblockers by default.
[citation needed]
While walking along in desert sand, you suddenly look down and see a tortoise crawling toward you. You reach down and flip it over onto its back. The tortoise lies there, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs, trying to turn itself over, but it cannot do so without your help. You are not helping. Why?
... and see how he/she/it reacts.
But they promise not to eavesdrop! Cross their corporate heart and swear to die! We can take them at their word, I'm sure.
I'm sure he'll do fine in the courts. After all, Google doesn't really have the resources to fight this and they have a history of just rolling over in the face of adversity.
Not to worry, we'll run out of tellurium long before those solar panels produce much waste.